Brand 'genericide': When a brand becomes a victim of its own fame
Brands can be victims of their own fame, as the line between becoming a household name and losing the exclusive rights to that name is a fine one.
In a phenomenon called "genericide", a company's trademark can become so popular that it turns into a generic term for a service or product, with the company losing its ability to differentiate its products from that of its competitors, leading to a loss of market share.
The term was coined in the 1970s by the then executive director of the US Trademark Association, Ms Dorothy Fey.
Businesses would do well to prioritise their branding efforts, said experts to The Straits Times.
Genericide may have had a hand in Tupperware's descent into bankruptcy, as the name of the American food container company came to be synonymous with all such products.
Tupperware could no longer command a premium as it became harder for consumers to distinguish its containers from others, which likely affected Tupperware's financial stability, said Ms Dorothee Frey, founder and managing director of intellectual property practice IPHub Asia.
When the word Tupperware could be used to describe containers from other brands, consumers no longer associated it with the original brand's products.
This made them more likely to buy alternatives, which are often cheaper, and Tupperware could no longer charge a premium for its branding and reputation for higher-quality products.
Genericide can cause a situation akin to the market being full of counterfeits of one company's product, said associate professor of marketing at the Singapore University of Social Sciences Lau Kong Cheen.
Even if brands tried, recovering losses from brand genericide may be an uphill battle. Businesses lose 5 per cent to 20 per cent of their sales when they change their brand names, Prof Lau said, citing research.
In Singapore, a logo consisting of a rooster with a flower border was registered by Chinese company Qinghai Xinyuan to label their "Rooster Brand" of cordyceps products in 2003.
Due to the widespread popularity of the brand, images of roosters were also used by multiple suppliers here to label their own cordyceps. This led to high competition in the cordyceps market and made it difficult for consumers to distinguish between cordyceps from various companies, according to a court document.
In 2004, traditional Chinese medicine company Wing Joo Loong filed a court application to revoke the registration of the "rooster mark".
Its claim was that it had become a generic label for cordyceps from China and could not be used to differentiate products by suppliers, and so Qinghai Xinyuan had no exclusive rights to its use.
Though the bid for its revocation was unsuccessful and Qinghai Xinyuan retained its right to the "rooster mark", the case highlighted how susceptible a brand can be to losing its trademark protection when it becomes popular, especially when threatened by competitors.
Preventing genericide is a balance of brands "owning their category", while not being "synonymous with the category", Prof Lau said.
Grab's multifunctional phone application for ride-hailing, food delivery and digital payment services runs the risk of its name being used as the generic term for its services, which may be a slippery slope to more damaging effects.
"As Grab increasingly becomes synonymous with 'getting a ride' from any ride-hailing service, its distinctiveness as a brand could be weakened," Ms Frey said.
A brand name like Grab puts it at a higher risk of being generic, Prof Lau said.
He added: "I 'grab food', 'grab a car', 'grab a taxi'. In the long run, if they don't put (in place) a strategy to protect their name, it may be overused."
NTU associate professor of law Samtani Anil said that, in the short term, Grab's name still has a long way to go before truly becoming generic.
"The evolution of genericide isn't something that takes place immediately. It's over a period of time," he added.
Prof Lau said preventing genericide can start with how a business names its brand. Using a fanciful trademark, such as manufactured words that do not exist yet, reduces the risk of trademarks becoming generic.
Companies should also consistently signify that their brand is a trademark through various means, such as always including the trademark symbols on their names and logos as a signifier to the public that they are proprietary brands and should not be used indiscriminately on all products, Prof Samtani said.
They should also not use their trademarks as nouns, adjectives or verbs, he said.
A brand should also be accompanied by a product descriptor to reinforce that its name is a trademark and not a generic term, Ms Frey said. For example, "Kleenex tissues" should be used instead of "Kleenexes". More On This Topic Tupperware lenders owed about $1 billion fight over assets, including the precious brand name askST: What is a trademark opposition, and can anyone file one?
If a brand name is already becoming generic, companies can deploy advertising tactics to correct its usage, but success is not guaranteed, as observed with office equipment company Xerox.
The company's laser printer was the first of its kind when it debuted in 1969 and gained dominance in the office photocopier market.
But it started to lose market share from 1975 when the US Federal Trade Commission made it license its key patented technology to potential competitors, offering customers the option of using third-party services and supplies.
Adding to its woes was how the brand name Xerox was used widely to mean "photocopy" in common parlance, which hurt the company's ability to distinguish itself in the market with its expanded product offerings beyond just photocopiers. By the 1980s, its market share was just 14 per cent, a far cry from its heyday.
Brands can also enforce their trademark rights by sending cease-and-desist letters to those using their brand name generically.
"A company's trademark portfolio is one of its most important assets, and safeguarding your trademarks is essential to protecting and growing your business," Ms Frey said.
Prof Samtani said: "Companies have to take active steps to rein in the conversation because, otherwise, it could really affect their whole business model."
Anilkumar Samtani is Associate Professor and Head of the Division of Business Law at the Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University Singapore.